Page 64 of 65

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:03 pm
by PauloL
Londoner wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:08 pm
For sure macroscopic physics is deterministic, but quantum physics is less so. The world may seem deterministic or not, that depends. Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing determinism. I would if I had the palest answer to it, whatever answer, but I don't and have never read anything convincing from anyone.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:31 pm
by davidm
*sigh* I keep trying to stay out of here, but it's like rubbernecking at a traffic wreck. One can't take one's eyes off the goofy traffic wreck that is PauloL

PauloL wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:53 pm


Well, the male rat story published in Nature was impressive to scientific community because it showed a character may be acquired and transmitted according to Lamarck.
No, it doesn't show that.
So, your question "Are the mutations undergone by genes truly random(uncaused) or are they 'random' (inexplicable)?" remains unanswered.
It has been answered. In evolution, "random mutation" means a mutation that is not correlated to the adaptive needs of the organism or the state of the environment. That is the complete and full explanation.
Creationism is nonsense to me ...
No it's not. You're a creationist.
...but people here insist calling me creationist, mormon ...
Mormon? :?
... theist, and so on just because I question natural selection, which has many Achilles tendons, like Cambrian explosion and hemoglobin production (amongst many others).
It has no Achilles heels. I have correctly answered every single one of your stupid questions. The Cambrian explosion is not a problem for evolution. Asimov's number does not apply to evolved hemoglobin as opposed to (non-existent) random chance hemoglobin. That was Asimov's effing point, you patzer.

But be my guest and keep on making a total fool of yourself by recycling your tard. 8)

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:40 pm
by davidm
To stress for those who are not Dim of Wit:

Mutations are both caused and fully explicable -- though we may not know the exact cause of any particular mutation, because we don't have "mutation checkers" monitoring the case of every mutation -- they happen all the time!

Basically, they are copying errors -- not what you would expect to happen in organisms competently designed!

RANDOM in evolution DOES NOT MEAN "uncaused" or "inexplicable." It means just as I have described in the post previous to this, and also upthread.

That is all it means.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:46 pm
by Arising_uk
PauloL wrote:... and so on just because I question natural selection, which has many Achilles tendons, like Cambrian explosion and hemoglobin production (amongst many others).
This is the thing tho' as the 'Cambrian explosion' and haemoglobin production are all things that have been raised by the Intelligent Design mob in their attempt to refute Darwin's theory because they have a belief that there is a 'God' who created everything including species and they wish this to be taught as Science in their school systems. So you must be able to understand why many here think you have this as your agenda as well. This is reinforced by your apparent refusal to understand that NS is not random in the sense you require for your thoughts to make sense and that you appear to ignore the mathematical proofs that show that evolutionary algorithms can solve large intractable probability problems where brute force solutions cannot. Now personally I'll take you at face value and you are honestly undecided about NS and the Theory of Evolution but I think you are actually concerned with Abiogenesis rather than specie development as NS explains species in the best manner we have discovered so far. Is it an eternal truth? Maybe not but then it is Biology not Logic and so far it is the one than has made the most sense and been a pathfinder into many other areas of Science.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:24 am
by Belinda
Paulol referred to me:
So, your question "Are the mutations undergone by genes truly random(uncaused) or are they 'random' (inexplicable)?" remains unanswered.
But my question was answered to my satisfaction by Londoner. Londoner's answer is that mutations among genes are not random/nao causado but are random / aleatorio.

As for determinism it is a matter of one's faith (I don't mean religious religious 'faith' !) whether or not one believes in determinism.

It's a matter of fact that science is predicated on determinism, and also a matter of fact that natural selection is scientific and solely scientific. It follows then that we can shelve any discussion of determinism; and that when we are discussing natural selection determinism is taken for granted.

It also follows from the scientific basis of biological evolutionary theory that if Lamarckism is to be countenanced that must also be scientific. What we would exclude are Lysenkoism, and superstition.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:42 pm
by PauloL
Belinda wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:24 am
Of course, under NS, mutations can't be caused, but empirically as by observing mutations in M. tuberculosis we can't countenance they're aleatory. This is why I told you no easy answer.

Lamarck theory (once considered completely wrong), the capacity of some female amphibians to clone themselves if they don't find a male to mate (and clone after clone until a male comes), not to mention the neural algorithm carried by each stork allowing them to build and authentic engineering nest just at the right time, and the capacity that the whole stork can be "compressed" to a DNA string able to pass generation after generation and rebuild them, show that nothing related to life can be considered simple.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:53 pm
by Belinda
I am sorry to say, Paulol, that everything in your above post is wrong.

I said the opposite of what you implied that I said.

You have confused Lamarckism and asexual reproduction.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:06 pm
by davidm
PauloL wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:42 pm
Belinda wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:24 am
Of course, under NS, mutations can't be caused...
Of course they are caused! :lol: You still can't seem to grasp that in evolutionary theory, random only means "mutations that are not correlated to the adaptive needs of the organism or the state of the environment." Why can't you grasp this simple point? Is it because you prefer not to? Mutations are caused by lots of things!
Lamarck theory (once considered completely wrong)...
It is completely wrong.
the capacity of some female amphibians to clone themselves if they don't find a male to mate (and clone after clone until a male comes), not to mention the neural algorithm carried by each stork allowing them to build and authentic engineering nest just at the right time, and the capacity that the whole stork can be "compressed" to a DNA string able to pass generation after generation and rebuild them, show that nothing related to life can be considered simple.
Asexual reproduction is not Lamarckism in any way, shape or form. :roll:

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:06 pm
by PauloL
Belinda wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:53 pm
First of all, the examples I gave above aren't according to Lamarck in any way. Those examples with or without Lamarck just demonstrate complexity.

Can you explain what you mean as everything? Did I imply anything in you? If I did it wasn't my intention.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:09 pm
by davidm
PauloL wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:42 pm
Belinda wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:24 am
Of course, under NS, mutations can't be caused ...
I love the "of course" part -- startling ignorance stated as if self-evident fact! :lol:

All mutations are caused by something -- they are just not caused by what the organism needs. If a mutation happens to give a population an advantage, that is purely fortuitous -- see my oft-repeated example of the nylon-eating bacteria, which amazingly you appear still not to underastand.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:26 pm
by PauloL
Some people here are formatted to just discuss semantics and ignore facts if their formatting doesn't include explaining them.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:00 pm
by Arising_uk
Hmm...that'll be you really PauloL.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:54 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
Belinda wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:18 am
Paulol wrote:
Davidm keeps on semantic details, but doesn't explain how natural selection overcame the problems of probability with hemoglobin molecule.
Is the following any help?

Natural Selection

The struggle for existence

plus random mutations
I would argue that they were once seemingly random, but that with human science, specifically epigenetics, they are becoming calculable. The environment has everything to do with it. Know the environment, know how all elements react with one another as well as the four forces, electromagnetic radiation, etc, know the changes to expect.

No child, don't eat that mud pie which contains a little uranium, or stay in the sun for too long. Can you say, "malignancy?"


plus geological time spans

= natural selection

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:39 pm
by Viveka
Wouldn't Epigenetics and Lamarckism be the same thing?

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:44 pm
by davidm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:39 pm
Wouldn't Epigenetics and Lamarckism be the same thing?
No.